- This topic has 75 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
bearishgurl.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 3, 2016 at 6:56 PM #798290June 3, 2016 at 7:07 PM #798291
SK in CV
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t had TV since the 2nd week of Jan, SK. I cancelled my service because I had only been watching it myself ~2 hrs month for the past ~15 years and my last kid left home almost two years ago. It was a big waste of $$ for me.What kind of “rule” are you referring to in your first paragraph? I can do some more research on this plus Trump’s supreme court picks later tonight. And, are you sure some of those “vile (Trump) votes” aren’t being cast by men?[/quote]
Scalia died in February. For the first time ever, the Republ….nevermind. I already typed it. For 111 days, Republicans, who control the US senate, have refused to have a hearing on an Obama SC nominee. The rule never existed before. They just made it up, because Obama is black. They make lots of other excuses, but that’s what it is. No white president has ever faced the disrespect that this president has faced.
Every vote for Trump is vile.
June 3, 2016 at 7:14 PM #798292bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
I haven’t had TV since the 2nd week of Jan, SK. I cancelled my service because I had only been watching it myself ~2 hrs month for the past ~15 years and my last kid left home almost two years ago. It was a big waste of $$ for me.What kind of “rule” are you referring to in your first paragraph? I can do some more research on this plus Trump’s supreme court picks later tonight. And, are you sure some of those “vile (Trump) votes” aren’t being cast by men?[/quote]
Scalia died in February. For the first time ever, the Republ….nevermind. I already typed it. For 111 days, Republicans, who control the US senate, have refused to have a hearing on an Obama SC nominee. The rule never existed before. They just made it up, because Obama is black. They make lots of other excuses, but that’s what it is. No white president has ever faced the disrespect that this president has faced.
Every vote for Trump is vile.[/quote]I saw the Scalia death online and posted about it here. I’ll check out the other stuff you’re saying here tonight.
I still maintain that it is an uphill battle to get the SCOTUS to even accept a case, much less hear it and make a decision on it in less than 3 years. And that’s not counting the time it took for the case to work it’s way to the SCOTUS. The opposition to the LA law you brought up as a prospective lawsuit is currently as yet unfiled, no?
If Trump wins, he may only be in office for 4 years. I fail to see how he can change the “political complexion” of the Court overnight or even at all … that is, unless as least two more justices drop dead in the next 3.5 years or so.
June 3, 2016 at 7:19 PM #798293Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
If Trump wins, he may only be in office for 4 years. I fail to see how he can change the “political complexion” of the Court overnight or even at all … that is, unless as least two more justices drop dead in the next 3.5 years or so.[/quote]Two. That’s all it takes. There will be 2 new justices within 1 year. John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat. If Trump appoints two from his list, that’s 5-4. Roe v. Wade is history. But apparently, women’s rights aren’t a big thing for you. Or you could never vote for Trump. The two are entirely incompatible. Expect birth control to go the same way next.
June 6, 2016 at 5:44 PM #798438Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
[/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.
The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.
You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.
If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.[/quote]SK, what you’re saying here isn’t what 32-year veteran of the senate and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated in this great and informative CNN interview of June 2. Essentially, he stated that NO supreme court justice vacancies had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years. He also stated that a supreme court nominee has not been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888 and no US senate is ever going to confirm a SC nominee of a president of an opposite party.
see at 5:25
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/mcconnell-trump-could-alienate-latinos/vp-BBtO0e5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
That doesn’t sound like a “new rule” to me. The reason Scalia’s vacancy is not currently being filled has nothing to do with the race of the current president.
If what McConnell stated in the interview is true, then whoever is elected POTUS in 2016 will get to fill Scalia and Ginsburg’s slots next year.
June 6, 2016 at 6:05 PM #798440Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
[/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.
The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.
You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.
If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.[/quote]SK, what you’re saying here isn’t what 32-year veteran of the senate and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated in this great and informative CNN interview of June 2. Essentially, he stated that NO supreme court justice vacancies had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years. He also stated that a supreme court nominee has not been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888 and no US senate is ever going to confirm a SC nominee of a president of an opposite party.
see at 5:25
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/mcconnell-trump-could-alienate-latinos/vp-BBtO0e5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
That doesn’t sound like a “new rule” to me. The reason Scalia’s vacancy is not currently being filled has nothing to do with the race of the current president.
If what McConnell stated in the interview is true, then whoever is elected POTUS in 2016 will get to fill Scalia and Ginsburg’s slots next year.[/quote]
It’s not true. Mitch McConnell is a liar.
Abe Fortas was confirmed as chief justice during Lyndon Johnson’s final year in office. Homer Thornberry was confirmed as his replacement.
Benjamin Cardozo was nominated and confirmed under Herbert Hoover during his last year in office.
Mahlon Pitney was both nominated and confirmed during Howard Taft’s last year in office.
What is true, is not a single vacancy on the supreme court during the first 6 months of the final year of a presidential term has ever NOT been filled by the sitting president. The first time it’s ever happened is right now, because of a rule just invented 114 days ago by Mitch McConnell.
Again, McConnell flat out lied. He made the racist rule and then he lied about it. He’s made it pretty clear he’s comfortable with racism as part of his party’ platform. He’s continuing to support the only racist that is still a candidate. The same racist that you’re supporting.
June 6, 2016 at 6:37 PM #798442Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
[/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.
The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.
You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.
If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.[/quote]SK, what you’re saying here isn’t what 32-year veteran of the senate and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated in this great and informative CNN interview of June 2. Essentially, he stated that NO supreme court justice vacancies had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years. He also stated that a supreme court nominee has not been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888 and no US senate is ever going to confirm a SC nominee of a president of an opposite party.
see at 5:25
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/mcconnell-trump-could-alienate-latinos/vp-BBtO0e5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
That doesn’t sound like a “new rule” to me. The reason Scalia’s vacancy is not currently being filled has nothing to do with the race of the current president.
If what McConnell stated in the interview is true, then whoever is elected POTUS in 2016 will get to fill Scalia and Ginsburg’s slots next year.[/quote]
It’s not true. Mitch McConnell is a liar.
Abe Fortas was confirmed as chief justice during Lyndon Johnson’s final year in office. Homer Thornberry was confirmed as his replacement.
Benjamin Cardozo was nominated and confirmed under Herbert Hoover during his last year in office.
Mahlon Pitney was both nominated and confirmed during Howard Taft’s last year in office.
What is true, is not a single vacancy on the supreme court during the first 6 months of the final year of a presidential term has ever NOT been filled by the sitting president. The first time it’s ever happened is right now, because of a rule just invented 114 days ago by Mitch McConnell.
Again, McConnell flat out lied. He made the racist rule and then he lied about it. He’s made it pretty clear he’s comfortable with racism as part of his party’ platform. He’s continuing to support the only racist that is still a candidate. The same racist that you’re supporting.[/quote]OK, I’m going to research what you’re saying here later tonight.
I’m puzzled though. It was obvious to me that McConnell had some idea of the questions that Tapper was going to ask him. He didn’t waste a second or flinch but answered them straight up, thoroughly and without hesitation. Isn’t CNN considered to be a liberal news media outlet? Why didn’t Tapper call him on his lies if he knew the truth?
Or maybe he didn’t research and therefore didn’t know the “truth” (as you say) … or didn’t have time in the broadcast to delve into the truth :=0
Conversely, ultra Lib Political Correspondent John Dickerson seemed to have no problem inviting Trump into his Beverly Hills home for a “Face the Nation” interview yesterday morning (June 5) for the sole purpose of attempting to make him look stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dickerson_%28journalist%29
June 6, 2016 at 7:09 PM #798444Participant[quote=bearishgurl]OK, I’m going to research what you’re saying here later tonight.
I’m puzzled though. It was obvious to me that McConnell had some idea of the questions that Tapper was going to ask him. He didn’t waste a second or flinch but answered them straight up, thoroughly and without hesitation. Isn’t CNN considered to be a liberal news media outlet? Why didn’t Tapper call him on his lies if he knew the truth?
Or maybe he didn’t research and therefore didn’t know the “truth” (as you say) … or didn’t have time in the broadcast to delve into the truth :=0
Conversely, ultra Lib Political Correspondent John Dickerson seemed to have no problem inviting Trump into his Beverly Hills home for a “Face the Nation” interview yesterday morning (June 5) for the sole purpose of attempting to make him look stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dickerson_%28journalist%29%5B/quote%5D
Absolutely McConnell had it planned. He’s a seasoned politician. He knew the question would come up, and he had an answer ready. No CNN is not liberal. CNN is atrocious. CNN doesn’t have journalists. I don’t think there’s any network that does. There are some decent reporters. But they report what politicians say. They don’t follow up, or call them on BS. The only good follow-up questions come from the white house press pool. And you rarely see any of that on network or cable news.
I watched the first few minutes of the Trump interview. I’m not sure what your problem with it is. He’s running for president. Shouldn’t he be called on at least some of this dozens of lies? I didn’t watch the whole thing. Was he asked about when he supported the invasion of Iraq? He’s claimed a dozen times or more than he never supported it. He’s lying.
June 6, 2016 at 11:27 PM #798455Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]If, as you say, Obama will replace Scalia (and possibly Ginsburg), what are you worried about, SK? If Ginsburg is worried about who will replace her, then why doesn’t she just retire now? (My understanding is that she was in remission from Stage 1 panc after undergoing the Whipple procedure over 6 years ago but I understand the odds). She is very, very lucky to have caught it when she did, having been diagnosed with colon cancer (stage 2) nearly ten years before that where she had part of her colon removed. So I agree that Justice Ginsburg may not last thru January 2021.
[/quote]
Jesus fucking Christ. Do you not pay attention to what’s going on in the world? The racist republicans in control of the US Senate, have decided on a new rule, that has never existed before, that black presidents in the final year of their terms, can’t get a hearing on a supreme court justice.
The only way that Obama will get an opportunity to get a vote on a SC nomination is if Democrats take back control of the Senate. New senators will take office before Obama leaves office. He’ll have about 3 weeks to confirm a justice. If Trump wins (highly unlikely, unless there are way too many women like you casting vile votes), AND dems take back the Senate, then RBG will retire immediately. If Clinton wins, she’ll wait until Clinton is inaugurated. If Trump wins and Dems don’t take back the senate, women are fucked. Not maybe. That’s an absolute.
You might remember there was a douchebag hypocrite SC justice by the name of Antonin Scalia. He suddenly died, at the age of 79. Both Breyer and Kennedy, though neither are burdened with the douchebag disease, could similarly die unexpectedly. The risk is just too great to take the chance and leave it to a disgusting man like Trump.
If you cared about women, you could never vote for Trump. End of story.[/quote]SK, what you’re saying here isn’t what 32-year veteran of the senate and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated in this great and informative CNN interview of June 2. Essentially, he stated that NO supreme court justice vacancies had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years. He also stated that a supreme court nominee has not been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888 and no US senate is ever going to confirm a SC nominee of a president of an opposite party.
see at 5:25
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/watch/mcconnell-trump-could-alienate-latinos/vp-BBtO0e5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell
That doesn’t sound like a “new rule” to me. The reason Scalia’s vacancy is not currently being filled has nothing to do with the race of the current president.
If what McConnell stated in the interview is true, then whoever is elected POTUS in 2016 will get to fill Scalia and Ginsburg’s slots next year.[/quote]
It’s not true. Mitch McConnell is a liar.
Abe Fortas was confirmed as chief justice during Lyndon Johnson’s final year in office. Homer Thornberry was confirmed as his replacement.
Benjamin Cardozo was nominated and confirmed under Herbert Hoover during his last year in office.
Mahlon Pitney was both nominated and confirmed during Howard Taft’s last year in office.
What is true, is not a single vacancy on the supreme court during the first 6 months of the final year of a presidential term has ever NOT been filled by the sitting president. The first time it’s ever happened is right now, because of a rule just invented 114 days ago by Mitch McConnell.
Again, McConnell flat out lied. He made the racist rule and then he lied about it. He’s made it pretty clear he’s comfortable with racism as part of his party’ platform. He’s continuing to support the only racist that is still a candidate. The same racist that you’re supporting.[/quote]
I just did some research on your post and found out the following:
LBJ spent 5 years, 2 months as president. The first year and 2 months was in succession due to the death of JFK. Relevant dates of that term was 11/22/63 to 1/20/65. He was re-elected for a second term commencing 1/20/65 to 1/20/69.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
LBJ (D) nominated Abe Fortas for Justice of the Supreme court in 1965 and he was successfully confirmed by a Dem Senate 8/11/65 (the first year of LBJ’s second term).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas
In June 1968, LBJ nominated Abe Fortas for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Homer Thornberry for Fortas’ seat but he was never confirmed because Abe Fortas was never confirmed for the Chief Justice post so no vacancy on the court existed.
Thornberry was nominated for Abe Fortas’ seat on the Supreme Court by Lyndon B. Johnson when Johnson nominated Fortas to replace Earl Warren as Chief Justice. However, once Fortas withdrew his nomination in October 1968, Thornberry’s nomination became moot and was withdrawn by the White House without a vote. Thornberry was the last Supreme Court nominee to have served in the United States Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Thornberry
LBJ nominated Thurgood Marshall for supreme court justice on 6/13/67 (in the middle of his second term) and he was successfully confirmed by a Dem Senate on 8/31/67.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
…When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in June 1968, Johnson nominated Associate Justice Fortas to replace Warren as Chief Justice, and nominated Homer Thornberry (whom Johnson had previously appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1965) to the Associate Justice seat that Fortas would be vacating. Thornberry was chosen out of a larger field of candidates who were considered, including former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance, Maine Gov. Edmund Muskie, United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry H. Fowler and prominent lawyer Albert E. Jenner, Jr.[9]
However, the Warren Court’s form of jurisprudence had angered many conservative members of the United States Senate, and the nomination of Fortas provided the first opportunity for these senators to register their disenchantment with the direction of the Court; they planned to filibuster Fortas’ nomination.[10] Senate Judiciary Committee chair James Eastland told Johnson he “had never seen so much feeling against a man as against Fortas.”[2] Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon B. Johnson.
Johnson sought to help Fortas win a majority vote, but only as a face-saving measure, according to Johnson aide Joseph Califano:
“ “We won’t withdraw the nomination. I won’t do that to Abe.” Though we couldn’t get the two-thirds vote needed to shut off debate, Johnson said we could get a majority, and that would be a majority for Fortas. “With a majority on the floor for Abe, he’ll be able to stay on the Court with his head up. We have to do that for him.” Fortas also wanted the majority vote….On October 1, after a strenuous White House effort, a 45-43 majority of senators voted to end the filibuster, short of the 59 votes needed for cloture, but just barely the majority LBJ wanted to give Fortas. Later that day, Fortas asked the President to withdraw his nomination.[11] ”The debate on Fortas’s nomination had lasted for less than a week, led by Republicans and conservative southern Democrats, or so-called “Dixiecrats”. Several senators who opposed Fortas asserted at the time that they were not conducting a perpetual filibuster and were not trying to prevent a final up-or-down vote from occurring.[12] However, the Senate web site now characterizes the debate as the first filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee.[13]
In 1968, Senate rules required two-thirds of senators present to stop a debate (now 60% of the full Senate is needed). The 45 to 43 cloture vote to end the Fortas debate included 10 Republicans and 35 Democrats voting for cloture, and 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats voting against cloture. The 12 other senators, all Democrats, were not present.
The New York Times wrote of the 45 to 43 cloture roll call: “Because of the unusual crosscurrents underlying today’s vote, it was difficult to determine whether the pro-Fortas supporters would have been able to muster the same majority in a direct confirmation vote.”[14]
Once Fortas withdrew his nomination in October 1968, Thornberry’s nomination became moot and was withdrawn by the White House without a vote. Former Justice Arthur Goldberg later claimed that he was Earl Warren’s preference to succeed him.[15] After Fortas’s nomination was withdrawn in the face of Senate opposition, Johnson briefly considered naming Goldberg as Chief Justice as a recess appointment before rejecting the idea.[16] The next president, Republican Richard Nixon, appointed Warren Burger the next Chief Justice. David Leonhardt of The New York Times called Johnson’s nomination of Fortas “one of the most consequential blunders in modern American politics” as the Chair has been held by conservatives appointed by Republican presidents ever since.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson_Supreme_Court_candidates
Herbert Hoover (R) was president from 3/2/29 to 3/4/33. He nominated Benjamin Cardozo for supreme court justice and he was successfully confirmed on 3/2/32 (84 years ago) by a Republican Senate, one year and 2 days before he left office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
Howard Taft (R) was president from 3/4/1909 to 3/4/1913. He nominated Mahlon Pitney for supreme court justice and he was successfully confirmed on 3/13/1912 (104 years ago) by a Dem Senate, just nine days short of one year before he left office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahlon_Pitney
McConnell was technically correct when he said on CNN that there hadn’t been a supreme court justice vacancy which had been filled during an election year for the past 80 years.
I don’t know whether McConnell’s claim is true or not that a supreme court nominee hadn’t been confirmed by the opposite party in an election year since 1888. Finding the answer would take much more research.
[img_assist|nid=25865|title=History of US Senate and House of Reps in power|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=50]
When Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, Pres. Obama had 341 days or 11 months, 5 days left of his term (less than one year). Are you sure the reason our current Republican Senate won’t confirm any of Pres Obama’s supreme court picks in his last year of office are because he’s Black (or half-Black … as the case may be)?
June 7, 2016 at 2:40 PM #798499Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
When Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, Pres. Obama had 341 days or 11 months, 5 days left of his term (less than one year). Are you sure the reason our current Republican Senate won’t confirm any of Pres Obama’s supreme court picks in his last year of office are because he’s Black (or half-Black … as the case may be)?[/quote]or half-black? really? why is that even worth mentioning? Has any other president ever been required to provide his birth certificate to prove he wasn’t born in Kenya? I didn’t read anything you posted except for the last paragraph. Here’s the deal. No supreme court vacancy occurring in the first 6 months of the last year of any presidents last term in office has ever not been filled by that sitting president. Even McConnell acknowledges that it’s purely political. No former president has ever been treated as poorly as this president has. None has been accused of being a liar DURING a state of the union address. None has ever been denied a hearing on a supreme court nominee.
Have you heard the tea partiers claim “I want my country back”? You know what they’re saying, right?
Yes. I’m sure.
June 7, 2016 at 6:10 PM #798507joec
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
When Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, Pres. Obama had 341 days or 11 months, 5 days left of his term (less than one year). Are you sure the reason our current Republican Senate won’t confirm any of Pres Obama’s supreme court picks in his last year of office are because he’s Black (or half-Black … as the case may be)?[/quote]or half-black? really? why is that even worth mentioning? Has any other president ever been required to provide his birth certificate to prove he wasn’t born in Kenya? I didn’t read anything you posted except for the last paragraph. Here’s the deal. No supreme court vacancy occurring in the first 6 months of the last year of any presidents last term in office has ever not been filled by that sitting president. Even McConnell acknowledges that it’s purely political. No former president has ever been treated as poorly as this president has. None has been accused of being a liar DURING a state of the union address. None has ever been denied a hearing on a supreme court nominee.
Have you heard the tea partiers claim “I want my country back”? You know what they’re saying, right?
Yes. I’m sure.[/quote]
And these are the reasons why our political system and our politics suck so bad.
It’s never been this bad because even in the past, the government did what was needed to at least do their jobs “a little” and try to improve everyone’s / countries lives.
Now, on both sides, Republican and Democrats, it’s to shut down the country, block everything, etc etc etc…
I think both sides are just as bad as each other and they are doing this because this is just the state of our country and our politics.
Even elder Bush had to go back on his word of no more taxes and loss re-election because of it…
I honestly don’t think Dems would do any different since they aren’t any different on both sides.
June 7, 2016 at 6:32 PM #798511PCinSD
GuestJune 7, 2016 at 6:35 PM #798512Participant[quote=joec]Now, on both sides, Republican and Democrats, it’s to shut down the country, block everything, etc etc etc…
I think both sides are just as bad as each other and they are doing this because this is just the state of our country and our politics.
[/quote]
No, both sides don’t do it. It’s not even close. Democrats aren’t shutting down the government. Democrats aren’t getting sued because they’re not providing a basic education to students. Democrats aren’t holding up health care funding for 9/11 first responders and the department of Veterans Affairs. Democrats aren’t holding up appointments of hundreds of judges, including a vacancy on the supreme court, that’s likely to last a year or more. Democrats aren’t passing hundreds of laws every year putting women’s health at risk. Democrats aren’t cutting taxes across the country for millionaires and billionaires, ensuring that states can’t pay for vital services.
Republicans have spent the last 35 years telling everyone that the government is broken. That the government is the problem. And they’ve spent most of those 35 years making sure that was true. And then they’ve proved it was, in fact, their goal over the last 7 1/2 years. If the government is broken, it’s because republicans have broken it.
Both sides don’t do it.
June 7, 2016 at 7:09 PM #798513
CoronitaParticipant[quote=PCinSD]Interesting read:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10317324.html
But no way will she get indicted.[/quote]
3 reasons why she’s not going to get indicted before the election
1. Obama appointed Justice Dept is not going to bring charges
2. Republicans are not going push for it, because
(a) some republicans probably hate Trump more than Hillary
and
(b) Republicans probably are more worried if she does get indicted, Bernie would end up running against Trump, and has better chance of winning.June 7, 2016 at 8:11 PM #798516Guest[quote=flu][quote=PCinSD]Interesting read:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10317324.html
But no way will she get indicted.[/quote]
3 reasons why she’s not going to get indicted before the election
1. Obama appointed Justice Dept is not going to bring charges
2. Republicans are not going push for it, because
(a) some republicans probably hate Trump more than Hillary
and
(b) Republicans probably are more worried if she does get indicted, Bernie would end up running against Trump, and has better chance of winning.[/quote]Agreed.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.